Posted
by
kdawson
on Sunday February 11, 2007 @09:00PM
from the oh-and-5-bucks-for-the-earbuds dept.

soulxtc writes "Unable to define memory as a 'recording medium,' Canada's Private Copyright Collective goes directly after portable music player devices, memory cards, and anything else that can be used to make private copies. The PCC submitted a proposal to the country's Copyright Board that suggests levies of $5 (Canadian) on devices with up to 1GB of memory, $25 for 1-10 GB, $50 for 10-30 GB, and $75 for over 30 GB. If approved, this propoal would increase the price of a 30-GB iPod by 26%. These collections are intended to compensate artists and labels for the losses they suffer when people 'illegally' copy or transfer music. The PCC is also seeking a new $2 to $10 tax on memory cards. The backbone of digital photography has become tangled up in the fight for making sure music companies get every nickel and dime they feel that they deserve."

Really? Why would you suggest knuckling under to it at all? Don't BUY an iPod, or anything else the bastards tax. Let your voice (dollars, euros, whatever) be heard. At the end of the day, business buys legislatures and your money effects business. Vote where it matters - forget the ballot box.

Well, getting more people who might say "ok" to it to realize it is disproportionate and object on that ground would be nice too. As for the tax thouhg, doesn't canada have fair use rights? If so then why aren't these considered above possible illegal copying? And how long will it take before Apple sells the memory as an addon to the "Ipod canadian edition" to keep them affordable and end up having these people try to tax hardrives? I mean $75 for 30 gig? when the storage in the ipod is basicly the same thing? And herddrives can hold music too!

Anything to get people to reject this so some common sence can be used.

Don't tell let them hear you, or we're all screwed. What happens when they realise we can record music in our memories and play it back at will, will they start taxing our brains. 'Spose I'd best start drinking heavily to reduce my capacity.

If I read this correctly, the people wanting these taxes also want to tax memory cards of a sort that work in MP3 players but are more often used in digital cameras. What should the digital photographers do, if this law is passed, when their current stock of memory cards runs out?
And if hard drives get taxed, what will you do when your current HD dies?

No kidding... The next thing you know, they'll be taxing products like gasoline or tobacco at different (and much higher) rates for no apparent reason. True, true, usually there is some hand-waving about supporting roads and health care costs but I think the accounting out the other end says different. At least in this case, they TELL you the tax rates. Anybody here know the tax rates for gasoline in their city/state? Here, I think it's around 15%, but I can't find info on it anywhere.

also, economics 101: if you want to recover your money from a bad investment, you DO NOT raise the price. you lower it. you sell it to the first jerk that show up, then "Take The Money and Run".

That theory applies to most of us, but in advanced Econ 748 - Economics for Cartels - we learn that it the previous economic principles are only valid when you fail to properly legislate yourself a revenue stream and business model.

So, this means that I get to download anything I want while in Canada free of guilt and cost... right?

Actually yeah. In Canada we pay a small tax on blank tapes and a special kind of recordable cd that nobody buys. The upside is that it is perfectly legal for Canadians to share their music with each other and to download music off the internet. Making files available on the web is brodcasting and therefore illegal, and charging money for copying is also illegal. However, if you want to set up an mp3 server at work, there is no law preventing that.

What it comes down to is you cannot tax illegal behaviour. Our courts would never accept it. So this isn't that scary, in that there an upside because they also enshrine the right to share music with those players. As for digital photography? That would result in too many pissed off taxpayers. Probably the worst would be some brand of memory card being released with an absurd tax just like for cds. And it will quietly be ignored by consumers, if they ever see it.

Finally, just because they are asking for $25 doesn't mean the politicians won't just give them $2.50 and tell them to keep quiet. We have a minority government right now so the politicians are far too busy kissing voter but.

In some circumstances, it's legal for Canadians to share copyrighted music.

However, the following is not true:

Canadians pay a levy on recordable media. Because of this, in some circumstances it's legal for Canadians to share copyrighted music.

To be sure, lots of Canadians use the levy as moral justification to pirate as much music as they can, often citing the fact that artists are compensated by the levy (the reality is that it largely goes to Canadian artists). In other words, Canadians have their choice of 94 moral justifications for piracy, vs. the 93 that we in the United States have.

You're correct that the AHRA defines tariffs on some recordable media (including DAT machines, and those music CD-Rs that nobody buys). I'm sure there are lots of people who use the existence of this tariff as a moral justification for piracy, but the tariff certainly doesn't make it legal.

What it comes down to is you cannot tax illegal behaviour. Our courts would never accept it.

Count yourself lucky, I guess. In the US, it is, for example, illegal not to declare your income from criminal activity to the IRS for taxation. (Which is why so many mobsters were eventually nailed for "tax evasion" as opposed to racketeering, extortion, theft, or murder.)

Further, I'm willing to bet that paying the tax would not protect you from a civil suit from the RIAA.

What it comes down to is you cannot tax illegal behaviour. Our courts would never accept it.

I don't know about there, but in the US theft, fraud, extortion money, bribes and other illicit gain IS taxed, income taxed. Yes it's strange, but it's how it is. I am willing to bet it's the same in Canada as well.

First, Canada never had prohibition. Second, you're thinking Al Capone. That's the US. The GP is saying that Canadian courts don't allow for explicit taxation of illegal behaviour. That has not ever really been a US thing (income is income, whether legal or not). It may be related to the concept that Canadians don't pay taxes on lottery winnings, but Americans do: income tax is targeted at employment income in Canada.

Two reasons. First, the law is pretty broad, defining income as all income, however derived. They didn't want to leave much out. Second, more suckers will play the lottery if the number is the bigger pre-tax amount than the smaller post-tax amount. So they'd rather do the former. Of course the lottery is a tax on being bad at math anyway.

OT, but pretty funny.A couple of years ago in Sweden a prostitute demanded to be able to be able pay tax on her income, she argued that she too had a right to the social benefits this provides (In Sweden, prostituting yourself in not illegal, pimping or buying sex is though).

After a lot of fuss with the tax authorities, she was finally granted to pay tax on her prostitution income. She then immediatley sued our prime minister for selling sex, since he got a share of the money, she argued, he was acting as h

Sure, they say its for the artists - but once the PCC's "costs"
are taken out - how much will be left.

How will they
distribute the money? Proportional to the CD sales? To online
sales? Will they just cut a check to every artists in
canada? How will recompence non-canadian artists? Or is
this just a scam fee going to the RIAA? (Just like the millions
that the RIAA is making from their lawsuit business - that sure
as hell ain't going to Justin Timberlake or Joni Mitchell)

"How will they distribute the money? Proportional to the CD sales? To online sales? Will they just cut a check to every artists in canada? How will recompence non-canadian artists? Or is this just a scam fee going to the RIAA? (Just like the millions that the RIAA is making from their lawsuit business - that sure as hell ain't going to Justin Timberlake or Joni Mitchell)?"

The CPCC has a web site here [cpcc.ca]. Hit the link on the left labelled "Royalty distribution." It's a bit dry, but you should be able to get an answer to all of your questions.

Keep in mind that the CPCC != the CRIA (Canada's equivalent of the RIAA). The CPCC represents primarily artists.

So, this means that I get to download anything I want while in Canada free of guilt and cost... right?

More than that, you can borrow CDs from public libraries and copy them into your digital collection, then share that digital collection on a peer-to-peer system and, of course, download music, as the supreme court has decreed that this is legal according to the current copyright law.

Better yet, at this moment, there is no bill pending consideration that would change that; bill C-60 died a year ago when

We had such a levy on iPods and other "recordable media" a few years back, it was struck down [slashdot.org] and collected levies had to be refunded. Now this organization wants to put the levies back (and expand them).

At the same time, the Canadian Recording Industry Association (think Canadian RIAA) is lobbying [slashdot.org] to eliminate fair use rights [slashdot.org] in order to "harmonize" with the US's draconian copyright system (the same harmonization that fucked over the Australians when they signed their free trade agreement with the US).

The attempt at double-dipping is truly mind boggling; it's depressing that no one in power cares.

It's good to know that the record industry in the US aren't the only thugs in the business. Yeah, let's just assume everyone is a crook and charge them up front! The greed of these fuckers is absolutely endless.

According to this article" [com.com] music sharing does not kill CD sales due to the fact that those that download music would not likely buy it in the first place. MP3 Players and P2P software have become the scapegoat of the music industry. They are trying to compensate for something they caused (by releasing music overpriced and more) by taking away from the consumer. It's completely ridiculous.

Shh, you're not supposed to point that out. Someone has to be blamed for "lax CD sales" [though I've been told they're doing better, who to trust, who to trust....] and it can't possibly be the complete and utter lack of talent.I think if any artists wants to test their bones they should set up an escrow. Give the world an ultimatum, "put $X dollars in an escrow or I won't release my next album." Once they decrease $X a few times they might stop thinking they walk on water. Though K-Fed's recent tour ca

Do they want me to stop buying music? If I am going to be charged for buying a new iPod, I should be able to download at least as much music as it costs for the fee right? If they are going to accuse people of being thieves, then I suppose they have no choice but to stop buying music completely and just pirate it. Way to go CRIAA. Have fun with bankruptcy.

I have a better question: If this becomes Canadian law, does that mean that Apple's iTMS and other MP3 stores start providing their content free to Canadian individuals, but start charging the labels/artists per song?

You can copy music from a friend if you put it on a medium which has the levy, because then you have paid royalties. It may be the case that you can download, given the same condition. See A Guide to Copyrights: Copyright Protection [ic.gc.ca].

Basically, yeah. It is. It's the rationale for why the recording industry hasn't ever even tried to sue people for downloading music in Canada: it'd never stand up in court. We're already compensating the artists directly through the tariffs, which are getting distributed to the artists' guilds directly, not to their industrialist herders.

Eventually, if this tax is approved, the entire weight of the tax is going to shifted onto the consumers. Why must the consumers be punished by the same people they're purchasing music from?
And people wonder why I never listen to/buy new music these days.

First of all, this is more "you have an iPod, you must be a criminal" nonsense.
Well, here's what I have to say about RIAA and it's Canadian counterpart:
If you treat everyone like they're a thief, it's probably because you're a thief too. (Credit to my father who said this referring to Wal-Mart)
Furthermore, from their standpoint, why give people MORE ammo with which to justify pirating music and video. This will have the OPPOSITE effect than they want. (i.e. I paid $75 extra for this 30Gig iPod, and I'm gonna get my money's worth.. etc...)

The problem with current copyright laws is that in the future everyone might be able to have that sort of memory for hearing, sight etc. You can also have virtual telepathy. Most of the tech is already available, it's just a matter of cost and making the implants safer and better.

As it is, you'd probably have to have DRM in your brain "add-on", and possibly pay a fee just to remember stuff, and be prohibited from communicating with your friends about certain things.

soon enough we'll be paying a tax on hard drives because of this nonsense. I say fuck this noise. No agency has a right to charge me a tax on something I may not use for music, or if it does get used for music, it's MY music. Charging me for using my own property in my own way is just fucked up.

Yeah, but you have to realize this is driven by greed, not necessity. Logic flies out the window. What I love is the double standard. They claim the levy is to offset piracy, then claim that piracy should be illegal. Well can't have it both ways.To me this is the patent and DRM situations. It has to become completely ridiculous before the average layperson [re: 99% of the population] will start to give a damn. In the meantime, every hack in a suit will try to slice a bit of the illegitimate pie for th

Because these CD tarriffs and whatnot are not actually collected. There is no mechanism in place to collect and distribute the tax, consequently the existing CD levee is ignored by blank CD importers. My guess is that the same fate will befall the latest money grab attempt.

It's a levy not a tax. You don't see it at the cash register. According
to the Canadian Private Copying Collective they collected $35M in 2005
(http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm). Up to 2005 they have distributed
almost $93M. Why the OP's brother hasn't seen any of it, I can't say.

As I purchase large quantities of CD-Rs for use at my workplace, I've done some research into this.

From the seller's point of view, it's not so much that they have to charge the levy to customers, but that they themselves have to pay the levy to the CPCC for any CDs they sell (the exception being sales to customers that have a levy exemption such as my workplace). Of course, that expense is passed on to the customers in the form of higher prices. In the interest of full disclosure, I've seen some places with signs out by the CDs/DVDs outlining how much of the price goes to the levy.

In this case with the seller you point out, there are a couple possibilities. The first is that they are indeed paying the levy to the CPCC, but are not raising their prices because they subsidize their CD sales from their other sales. The second is that they are not playing by the rules. If they're not paying the levy, they're engaging in illegal activity, to the best of my knowledge.

One other thing to point out here is that since it's technically that the Canadian sellers pay the levy on CDs they sell as opposed to Canadian customers paying it on stuff they buy, it's perfectly legal for Canadians to purchase their CDs from the US and avoid the extra costs associated with the levy.

All good questions. His albums have sold modestly; the Juno-nominated one was in one of the 'other' categories (Best Aboriginal Album), so not huge sales. So as a result, Nelly Furtado gets the lion's share of this money (if any artists have ever gotten any--which I'm not sure has truly been established) and the musicians who are scraping by get nothing. Not a little bit, but NOTHING.Then consider that while my brother is recording gigs, practices, jam sessions, etc., any copies of original music that they'

Ah, fuck it. Why wait for a revolution? Everybody get your guns and we'll meet down at the bar to plan our attack on these useless leeches.

I believe you mean "Everybody get your guns and we'll meet down at the bar, get drunk, shoot ourselves in the foot, then decide this was a stupid idea and go home to watch TV like the placid Americans/Canadians we are."

The Private Copying Levy is what lets me download with impunity in Canada. The dollars may or may not actually get to the artists (google away on this one), but it certainly does facilitate my p2p activities.

I don't know who the 'Private Copyright Collective' is, but this position is at odds with what we've been hearing about the Canadian Recording Industry Association's position - last heard as wanting to do away with the levy:

I think this is an interesting tactic: collect levy at the front end, squeeze the availability of material via p2p networks through increased DRM on released materials.

Quite honestly, I don't really notice the levy at my pocketbook, and it does make for an entirely different legal landscape for p2p downloading. Michael Geist is the Guy in the Know about this landscape in Canada - check out his blog at the address above, there's reams of material there.

If they think this is a good deal, then why not make it part of a package when one buys an iPod? Spend an additional $5 for your 1GB iPod, and you get a contract that says you can download as much cartel music as you want, from any source, to that device.

For people who want to go the iTunes route, they could simply turn down the contract.

Sigh. Something tells me the fact that they're trying to legislate this means they wouldn't go for my idea. Not enough free money in it for them, I'm guessing.

Seems like local versions of these interest groups in other countries, are lobbying for similar taxes. sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. The all have the same thing in common that they lack any form of PR skills.:)There have been a game going on for years here in Europe, fx in Denmark the price of a blank CD or DVD were at one point 5-10 times higher than the same product in Germany. So of course people would just buy a spindle when on vacation og ordering it on the internet and save

Actually, it only makes sense. DRM etc won't stop downloading so the companies may as well get something. This is all cool provided two things: the first is that the artists actually get the cash, and the second is that this set of numbers is only a start position for negotiations. Properly done, this can be quite a decent solution for all involved.

We (the people who have to pay this tax) get paid back.50 for each song that we buy (be it digital download or off of a CD) due to the fact that RIAA and Canadian equivelent are stealing from us due to overpriced crappy products.Oh, as to assuming that we're all stealing, I would now presume that we have a reason for a class action libel lawsuit due to the fact that they are essentially calling everyone on the North American continent thieves. I assume that not all of us are, and should stand up to thes

I always did find "innocent before proven guilty" to be rather ineffective. Why not just calculate the average of criminal activity among the whole population, and incarcerate each person for the amount of time found in the result? Think of the money that could be saved when the courts are closed down.

The association better have a very good reason why they want to charge for than 3x for the ipod compared to cd-rws.

Also, why stop with ipod? I can record information on harddrives too! Let's see, a typically hard drive in a computer has 250 gb. Obviously, if a 30gb ipod costs $40, a 250gb computer should cost (250/40) x $40 = $240! We all know computers are the main source of illegally downloaded mp3!

The collective had argued the memory inside a digital audio device such as an iPod is an audio recording medium primarily used to store music, and therefore should be subject to the Canadian Copyright Act....It says devices such as the iPod can be classified as a "recording medium" and should be subject to taxation.

Noticed that the collective is arguing that the device is a "recording medium" used to "store music", not "you can listen to it".

I agree that these taxes are ridiculous - $75 being quite a hefty price increase - however, if this is a replacement for record companies suing random 12 year olds for $5000, I can't say it's totally bad.

Shouldn't every content provider / IP holder who's content could potentially be recorded onto these types of media get a cut of the money? It would be a great crutch for talentless hacks to still make money without worry. In fact, I think manufacturers of bags/backpacks/luggage etc. should be taxed because their products could possibly be used in robberies.

A few years ago some countries in Europe adopted a similar taxing on media-carriers and media. The problem is that not a single musician or even a record label sees any of the money. The state forwards it to this 'non-profit' organization and recently a 'scandal' quickly buried by the media came out that actually in over 3 years, millions of euros have been collected and none have been paid out. It also came out that the employees of this 'non-profit' organization (similar to RIAA) had salary's exceeding 250k/year.

One point that everyone is missing is that many of the content providers pay very little tax - with Hollywood accounting blockbuster movies make a loss and with record company accounting even the performers have to pay for a lot of things which any other industry would pay for out of revenue - let alone money left over for to be taxed.

I think the suppliers of blank media make a greater contribution to the economy and the tax base - and really shouldn't be victimised because some loud tax dodgers with good lobbyists want a special tax to feed themselves and drain from another portion of the economy.

Goverments are not supposed to be fee collectors for private companies - they are supposed to work in the interest of their nations.

I've seen it before, but I've never quite understood how any government can be convinced to collect taxes for a non-government enterprise. Unless the government is now going to start producing, regulating or in some other way getting involved in the music industry, and intends to use the taxes to pursue that enterprise, why exactly would they collect taxes for it? -- I know it's slashdot but this is a serious question if anyone knows [seriously though - I know it's slashdot, but please refrain from the corruption/collusion arguments for at least 3 posts... ] [[no, seriously... ]]

Never quite understood how these levies/tariffs are distributed back to the artists.

So say if I download a few songs from groups such as Blood-Axe, mix it up with a bit of psy-trance from Finland, and then round it out with some Pendulum... and then burn it all on a CD for my car driving pleasure... how does the RIAA know how to distribute the funds to the starving artists in this case ?

What, they dont ?

So you mean despite the efforts of the original muso's involved, plus my time to mix and burn the CD - they just end up writing out yet another cheque to Celine Dion for all of our collective efforts ?

Fuck No !

Ive never wanted to even to listen to Celine Dion. Not ever !

But when I step into an elevator, or pass through a shoe shop - there she is, singing in the background and generally ruining my day.

I dont want to listen to her, but yet she still gets royalties out of me when I make my own CD, or backup my harddisk ?

That is so totally around the wrong fucking way. Man - I should be PAID by Celine Dion instead as compensation for HAVING to listen to any of her music, which is clearly against my wishes. She infringes upon my personal aural liberty, and yet... money from my pocket ends up in hers anyway ?

That is just WRONG on so many levels.

Seriously - does ANYONE go the effort of actually downloading Celine Dion music and burning it on CD's Why ? So they can hold hands with their so-called 'friends' and dance around and be silly between glasses of cheap wine ?

What they should do is just stick to selling normal CD's and iPods and things without the tarriffs, but give people the right, if they so choose, to pay $100 and get a licence key that will put their CD Burner or iPod into some sort of crappy 'Celine Dion Mode'. In the same way that you can take a perfectly good PC, and pay $400 or whatever it is to stick Vista on there - enabling 'Celine Dion' mode on the iPod will virtually trash the machine, in exchange for getting the 'Wow' of having it play Celine Dion songs.. for a fee of course.

The iPod should just operate normally, unless you 'opt-in', and pay the fee, after which the iPod degrades itself to the point where it will play Celine Dion music. 'Look Herbert, my iPod it now plays Celine Dion !!'. 'Yayy !'. 'Hey Clarence, your iPod - its turning a pale shade of Green !!'. 'Its all about the Yayy !!'.

Seriously, there is no evidence at all that the labels (almost all American, btw) will actually give a dime to the artists on top of their existing contracts.

The "standard recording contract" pays the artist an upfront advance that is recouped from the royalties (usually a meager 12-14%, some of which may go to the engineer or the producer). IF and ONLY IF that advance is recouped in full (and record labels have tons of accounting tricks to assert that even a million-seller didn't "recoup") will the artist actually start seeing real royalty payments come in. (BTW, through all of this and beyond, the label owns the music, not the artist.)

There is nothing in the artist contract that actually has allowances for when extra "fees" collected on behalf of the artists of the label actually is applied to the payment of the advance. There is nothing in the accounting systems of a record label that will actually distribute such collected fees back to the artists of the label, either as cash or as applied to the advance.

The label keeps the money, most of which is either pure profit (it didn't cost them anything except paying the lobbyist) or at least is applied to the "general fund" which is used to pay the advance for the next standard artist's standard contract, and the legalized slavery continues unabated.

Unless the law goes against the labels as well, requiring that they show proof that they have changed their contracting and accounting systems to actually give an acceptable cut of this income to the artists, then all that has happened is that the legislation has totally bought into the lies and deceits of the music industry, and is sanctioning theft of both the artists AND the consumers.

If you are a manufacturer or importer, you can avoid the levy entirely on your products as long as you record some sound on the media before you sell it. The sound recorded on the media can even be erased. Clearly this is not an option for CD-Rs, but for devices that include a hard drive, simply recording a sound on the drive and then erasing it exempts the drive from the levy. This is because (as the legislation now stands) "blank audio recording medium means a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced, that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose and on which no sounds have ever been fixed..."

MP3 player manufactures could just preload some music onto it, and no levy for them! It's especially good for Apple then, that the Apple v. Apple thing has been settled.

I know it's too much to expect people to read the articles linked here, but could you at least read the entire summary?

The PCC is also seeking a new $2 to $10 tax on memory cards. The backbone of digital photography has become tangled up in the fight for making sure music companies get every nickel and dime they feel that they deserve."

Cool, so we can just turn any relevant parts of an article into "..." and then complain about the story, right? OK, let me give it a shot:

"The PCC submitted a proposal to the country's Copyright Board that suggests levies of....$75 for...a...music...c...d"

OK, now let me try to work up some outrage to go along with it:This article is a joke. The $75 levy wasn't for music CD's...it was for >30GB iPods. The story is inaccurate, and the submitter is an idiot.

yeah, no. It'd be a good thing, really... because it would be grounds to prove in court that I've already paid for any music downloading I ever do.

You know why there's no RIAA (CRIA is the Canadian equivalent) lawsuits in Canada? Because they wouldn't stand up in court. We already pay for it in the form of a small tariff on every blank CD and tape we buy. This is just more of the same. I'm not gonna fight it at all.

I have very little sympathy for thieves (bring out the "it's not theft, it is copyright infringement" whiners). However, if I were subject to this "tax", I'd damn well steal enough to compensate me for this tax. After all, if I've already paid for it, then I am going to get my money's worth.